tamil nadu state judicial academy · 2019. 5. 3. · anil pathak v. larsen and toubro limited...

az Hju8 /’;

TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY

Vol: XIV Part: 3 March, 2019

IMPORTANT CASE LAW

HEADQUARTERS, CHENNAI

No.30/95, P.S.K.R. Salai, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028

Phone Nos. 044– 24958595 / 96 / 97 / 98 Fax: (044) 24958595

Website: www.tnsja.tn.nic.in E-Mail: [email protected]/[email protected]

REGIONAL CENTRE, COIMBATORE

No.251, Scheme Road, Race Course, Coimbatore - 641 018.

Telephone No: 0422 - 2222610/710

E-Mail:[email protected]

REGIONAL CENTRE, MADURAI

Alagar Koil Road, K.Pudur, Madurai - 625 002. Telephone No: 0452 - 2560807/811

E-Mail:[email protected]

http://www.tnsja.tn.nic.in/

mailto:[email protected]/[email protected]

I

IINNDDEEXX

SS.. NNoo.. IIMMPPOORRTTAANNTT CCAASSEE LLAAWW PPAAGGEE

NNOO..

1. Supreme Court – Civil Cases 1

2. Supreme Court – Criminal Cases 3

3. Madras High Court – Civil Cases 5

4. Madras High Court – Criminal Cases 12

II

TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCAASSEESS WWIITTHH CCIITTAATTIIOONN

SUPREME COURT - CIVIL CASES

S.

No. CAUSE TITLE CITATION

DATE OF

JUDGMENT SHORT NOTES

Pg.

No.

1

Ramla v. National

Insurance CO..

LTD.

(2019) 2

SCC 192 30.11.2018

Compensation – Section 166, 167, 168

of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 – Just

compensation – Grant of amount in

excess of that claimed

1

2 Sri Ram Mandir

Jagtial v. S.

Rajyalaxmi

(2019) 2

SCC 338 10.12.2018

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 34

and 38 – Declaration of ownership and

title – Matters to be established and

proved

1

3

Municipal

Corporation of

Greater Mumbai

v. Pratibha

Industries Ltd.

(2019) 1 MLJ

379 (SC) 04.12.2018

Alternative Dispute Resolution –

Appointment of arbitrator – Recall of

order – Sections 9 and 11 Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Article

215 of Constitution of India.

1-2

4

Simplex

Infrastructure

Ltd. v. Union of

India

(2019) 2

SCC 455 5.12.2019

Arbitration and conciliation Act –

Section 34 – Extension of limitation

period

2

5

Mahabir Proasad

Choudhary v.

Octavius Tea &

Industries Ltd.

(2019) 2

SCC 476 4.12.2018

Labour Law – Labour Court/Industrial

Tribunal – Recall of ex parte award –

Jurisdiction of Tribunal

2

III

SUPREME COURT - CRIMINAL CASES

S.


DATE OF


Pg.

No

1

State of U.P. v

Wasif Haider

(2019) 2

SCC 303 10.12.2018

Criminal Trial – Identification – Test

Identification Parade – Effect of delay

– Proper mode of conduct of TIP –

Non-examination of witnesses –

Defective or illegal investigation

3

2 Viran Gyanlal Rajput

v. State of Maharastra

(2019) 2

SCC 311 5.12.2018

Crimes Against Women and Children

– Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act – Kidnapping, rape and

murder of minor, and causing

disappearance of evidence –

Identification of accused without

conduct of TIP – Validity

3-4

3

Deepu v. State of

M.P.

(2019) 2

SCC 393 14.12.2018

Section 319 Cr.P.C – Supplementary

charge sheet 4

4 State of Punjab v.

Rakesh Kumar

(2019) 2

SCC 466 3.12.2018

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act – Sections 80, 8, 21

and 22 – Drugs and Cosmetic Act –

Provisions of NDPS Act can be

applied in addition to provisions of

Drugs and Cosmetics Act

4

5 State of Kerala v.

Rasheed

(2019) 1 MLJ

(Crl) 326 (SC) 30.10.2018

Trial – Deferral of cross-examination –

Sections 231(2) and 309(1) Cr.P.C 5

IV

MADRAS HIGH COURT – CIVIL CASES

S. No.

CAUSE TITLE CITATION DATE OF

JUDGMENT SHORT NOTES Pg.No.

1

Sun Pharma

Laboratories

Limited v. Saviour

Drugs Pvt. Ltd.

(2019) 1

MLJ 177 4.12.2018

Intellectual Property Laws – Trade Mark – Infringement – Section 134(1) of Trade Mark Act Sections 2 and 7 of Commercial Courts Act 2015

5-6

2 Akilandam Ammal v. S. Varadarajan

(2019) 1

MLJ 297 25.10.2018

Civil Procedure – Execution

Proceedings – Set aside application

– Order 21 Rule 89 and Section 151

CPC – Article 127 of Limitation act

6

3

Parvathi v. Gowri

Ammal

(2019) 1

MlJ 315 22.11.2018

Tenancy Laws – Eviction –

Impleadment of parties 6-7

4

Emsar MGF Land

Limited v. S.P.

Velayutham

(2019) 1

MLJ 332 4.12.2018

Civil Procedure – Commercial

Division – Determination of

Jurisdiction – Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of

Commercial Courts Act

7

5

S. Thiyagaraja

Gurukkal v. T.A.S.S.

Sangam

(2019) 1

MLJ 339 30.10.2018

Civil Procedure – Suit for bare

injunction – Additional documents –

Order 41 Rule 27

7-8

6 Mohala v. M. Siva

(2019) 1

MLJ 406 22.11.2018

Civil Procedure – Rejection of plaint

– Non-Disclosure of cause of action

– Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

8

7

Commissioner v.

Srikanth

(2019) 1

MLJ 423 26.10.2018

Trust and Charities – Private Temple –

Purview of Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments Act

9

8

Commr., H.R & C.E.

Admn. Dept. v. A.

Krishna Iyer

(2019) 1

MLJ 445 3.10.2018

Trust and Charities – Private Temple

– Non-Production of inspection

Report – Section 70 of Tamil Nadu

Hindu Religious Charitable

Endowments section 114(g) of

Indian Evidence act

9-10

9

NLC India Limited v.

SICAL Logistics

Limited

(2019) 1

MLJ 449 31.10.2018

Alternative Dispute Resolution –

Aribitration Exparte interim orders –

Section 9 of Arbitration and

Conciliation Act – Order 39 Rule 3 –

Disputes arose between petitioners

and respondent with regard to

contractual arrangement for

transportation of coal

10

10 Saraswathi Ammal v.

V. Vadamalai

Rengappan (died)

(2019) 1

MLJ 473 25.10.2018

Property Laws – Possession of tile –

Service inam land – Section 43 of

Transfer of Property Act – Section

41 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious

and Charitable Endowments Act –

Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition

Act

10-11

V

MADRAS HIGH COURT – CRIMINAL CASES

S.


DATE OF


Pg.

No.

1 P.L. Jayaraj v. State rep.

by The Inspector of Police

(2019) 1

MLJ

(Crl) 161

12.11.2018

Statutory bail – Conditions – Section

167(2) Cr.PC – Conditional deposit of

Sum of Rupees Five crores to the

credit of case

12

2 P. Dhanam v. G.

Arjunan

(2019) 1

MLJ

(Crl) 166

11.10.2018

Negotiable Instruments –

Dishonor of cheque – Legally

enforceable debt – Sections 138

and 139 of Negotiable

Instruments Act

12

3 Anthoniammal v. State

(2019) 1

MLJ

(Crl) 171 11.10.2018

Murder – Provocation – Sections

304(ii) and 342 IPC 13

4

Saraswathy v. State

through Additional

Superintendent of

Police

(2019) 1

MLJ

(Crl) 176 23.10.2018

Illegal gratification – Reverse

burden of proof – Sections 7 and

13 of Prevention of Corruption

Act

13-14

5

S. Anbazhagan v. Sub

Inspector of Police

(2019) 1

MLJ

(Crl) 185 19.11.2018

Quashing of Final Report –

Cheating – Section 482 Cr.PC –

Section 420 IPC

14

6 Manicka Udayar v. State

rep. by The Inspector of

Police

(2019) 1

MLJ

(Crl) 280

3.10.2018

Rioting – Genesis of occurrence –

Sections 148, 149, 307, 324 and 326

of IPC 14

7 Duraisamy v.

Kumarasamy

(2019) 1

MLJ

(Crl) 333

13.11.2018 Negotiable Instruments –

Dishonor of cheque – Appeal

against acquittal

15

8 G. Logeswaran v.

State represented by

Inspector of Police

(2019) 1

MLJ

(Crl) 352

6.12.2018

Quashing of Proceedings –

Offences under Section 292(a)

and 506(i) IPC – Section 4 of

Tamil Nadu Prohibition of

Harassment of Women Act

15

9 G. Kothandan v. State

(2019) 1

MLJ

(Crl) 357

5.10.2018

Illegal gratification – Demand

and acceptance – Sections 7, 13

and 20 of Prevention of

Corruption Act

15-16

10

Anil Pathak v. Larsen

and Toubro Limited

(2019) 1

MLJ

(Crl) 385

17.12.2018

Negotiable Instruments – Sections

138 and 141 of Negotiable

Instruments Act – Directors of

comkpany – Quashing of

Proceedings

16

1

SUPREME COURT – CIVIL CASES

(2019) 2 SCC 192

Ramla v. National Insurance Co. LTD. (Santhangaunder)

Date of Judgment: 30.11.2018

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Compensation – Determination of

– Deceased victim working in foreign country – Salary certificate adduced by clamiants –

Need to compute compensation based on salary certificate

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166 and 168 – Compensation – Grant

of amount in excess of the claimed – Reiterated, is permissible

(2019) 2 SCC 338

Sri Ram mandir, Jagtial v. S. Rajyalaxmi (Ramana, J.)


Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 34 and 38 – Declaration of ownership and title –

Matters to be established and proved

(2019) 1 MLJ 379 (SC)

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Pratibha Industries Ltd.


Alternative Dispute Resolution – Appointment of arbitrator – Recall of order –

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), Sections 9 and 11 – Constitution of India,

1950, Article 215 – Petition filed by Respondent under Section 9 of Act of interim

injunction restraining encashment of bank guarantees given by them, allowed by High

court and also, Sole arbitrator appointed by Respondent on no objection given by

Assistant Engineer of Appellant – On notice of motion filed by Appellant against

appointment of Sole Arbitrator, Single Judge recalled order of appointment – Division

bench allowed appeal filed by Respondent holding that there is no provision in Part I of

Act, for any court to review its own order, hence this appeal – Whether High Court had

jurisdiction to recall its own order – Held, clauses referred to as arbitration clauses could

not, prima facie, be regarded as such – Assistant Engineer was not empowered to take

any decision regarding appointment of Arbitrator – Oral agreement between parties de

hors Clauses could not have been arrived at – High Courts were courts of record, set up

under Article 215 of Constitution – Jurisdiction to recall their own orders was inherent by

2

virtue of fact that they were superior courts of record – Having held that there is no

arbitration agreement, Act will not apply – Impugned judgment of Division Bench set

aside – Appeal disposed of.

(2019) 2 SCC 455

Simplex Infrastructure LTD. v. Union of India


A. Aribtration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Extension of

limitation period/Condonation of delay beyond the period/Condonation of delay beyond

the period prescribed – Impermissibility of, even when applicant is the State and delay is

owing to administrative diffculties – Held, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no

application to an application challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the 1996

Act

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Exclusion of time for

proceeding bona fide in a court/forum without jurisdiction – Permissibility of –

Condonation of delay – Not grantable, when petition otherwise barred even after

extending benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963

2019) 2 SCC 476

Mahabir Prosad Choudhary v. Octavius Tea & Industries LTD. ( Ashok Bhushan, J.)


Labour Law – Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal – Recall of ex parte award –

Jurisdiction of Tribunal – Power to entertain application for recall of ex parte award

beyond prescribed period – When available – When prescribed conditions for exercise of

ex parte power are not satisfied/sufficient cause shown for non-appearance – Violation of

principles of natural justice – Effect – Copy of written statement not sent to opposite party

* * * * *

3

SUPREME COURT – CRIMINAL CASES

(2019) 2 SCC 303

State of U.P. v. Wasif Haider


A. Criminal Trial – Identification – Test Identification Parade – Delay – Effect –

Proper mode of conduct of – Offence of rioting and firing at police personnel causing

death of senior official and injuring others – Out of seven eyewitnesses who participated

in TIP, five of them identifying accused with 100% precision – Credibility of

B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 378 and 386 – Appeal against

acquittal – Powers of appellate court – Scope – Reiterated – Interference warranted only

when there is perversity of fact and law – Presumption of innocence further reinforced

against acquitted accused

C. Criminal Trial – Injuries, Wounds and Weapons – Firearm/Gunshot

injuries/wounds/Ballistics/Ballistic expert – Discrepancy in post-mortem and FSL report –

Post-morterm report stating that there were only two wounds on body of deceased viz.

Entry and exit would – FSL report stating that bullet allegedly recovered from ashes of

deceased was charred and blistered

D. Criminal Trial – Witnesses – Injured witness – Non-examination – Effect

E. Criminal Trial – Investigation – Defective or illegal investigation – Held, benefit of

doubt arising out of faulty investigation accrues in favour of accused

(2019) 2 SCC 311

Viran Gyanlal Rajput v. State of Maharashtra

Date of judgment 05.12.2018

A. Crimes Against Women and Children – Death Sentence – Kidnapping, rape

and murder of minor, and causing disappearance of evidence – Sentence – Death Sentence –

Principles on basis of which justification for death penalty need to be considered, reiterated –

Commutation of death sentence to fixed minimum term of imprisonment – When warranted

B. Crimes Against Women and Children – Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 10 and 4 r/w Sections 302 & 201 IPC – Kidnapping, rape and

murder of minor and causing disappearance of evidence – Coviction – Sustainability

4

C. Criminal Trial – Conduct of accused, complainant, witnesses, etc. –

Conduct/Reaction/Behaviour of witnesses – Pws 4 and 5 along with other villagers searching

nerby settlement for a person in red T-shirt when it was discovered that victim had gone

missing

D. Criminal Trial – Identification – Identification of accused – Identification of

accused on basis of clothes worn without conduct of TIP – Validity

E. Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Recovery of dead body and articles

belonging to deceased at behewst of accused after 5 days

(2019) 2 SCC 393

Deepu v. State of M.P. (Shantanagoudar, J.)


Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 319 – Supplementary charge sheet ignorer

by trial court while discharging appellant-accused – No bar to proceed against him under

Section 319 CrPC based on supplementary charge sheet, particularly when sufficient material

is brought on record against him during course of trial

(2019) 2 SCC 466

State of Punjab v. Rakesh kumar (Ramana, J.)


A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Objective of, reiterated

– Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Objective of, reiterated

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 80, 8, 21 and

22 – Offences in relation to manufactured drugs – Provisions of NDPS Act can be applied in

addition to provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and are not in derogation of Drugs and

Cosmetics Act – Additionally, it is prerogative of State to prosecute offender in accordance

with law – Order of High Court, allowing suspension of sentence of respondent accused,

convicted under NDPS Act, observing that manufactured drugs, be it containing narcotic

drugs or psychotropic substances, if manufactured by a manufacturer, must be tried, if

violation is there, under Drugs and Cosmetics Act and not under NDPS Act, held erroneous,

hence, set aside

5

(2019) 1 MLJ (Crl) 326 (SC)

State of Kerala v. Rasheed


Trial – Deferral of cross-examination – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections

231(2) and 309(1) – Charge-Sheet filed against 8 persons, including Respondent/2nd

accused for alleged commission of certain offences – Application filed under Section

231(2) by Respondent to defer cross-examination was dismissed by Sessions Judge which

was reversed by High Court, hence this appeal – Whether exercise of discretion under

Section 231(2) by Sessions Judge was valid and legally sustainable – Held, guiding

principle for Judge under Section 231(2) was to ascertain whether prejudice would be

caused to party seeking deferral, if application was dismissed – While deciding application

under Section 231(2), balance must be struck between rights of accused, and prerogative of

prosecution to lead evidence – Certain factors must be kept in consideration – Possibility of

undue influence on witness(es) – Possibility of threats to witness(es) – Possibility that non-

deferral would enable subsequent witnesses giving evidence on similar facts to tailor their

testimony to circumvent defence strategy – Possibility of loss fo memory of witness(es)

whose examination-in-cheif had been completed – Occurrence of delay in trial, and non-

availability of witnesses, if deferral was allowed, in view of Section 309(1) – Bald assertion

made by Counsel for Respondent that defence of Respondent would be prejudiced if cross-

examination was not deferred – High Court had given no reasons for reversal of order of

Sessions Judge, particularly in light of possibility of undue influence and intimidation of

witness(es) since Respondent and 7th accused were highly influential political leaders –

appeal allowed.

******

MADRAS HIGH COURT – CIVIL CASES

2019) 1 MLJ 177

Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited V. Saviour Drugs Pvt Ltd.


Intellectual Property Laws – Trademark – Infringement – Trademarks Act, 1999 (Act

1999), Section 134(1) – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Act 2015), Sections 2 and 7 –

Plaintiff filed present suit for injunctive reliefs pertaining to complaint of infringement of

suit trademark and passing off qua suit trademark – Whether Plaintiff entitled to injunctive

reliefs pertaining to infringement of registered trademark and passing off of suit trademark –

Whether Plaintiff entitled to damages, costs and compensatory costs – Held, Commercial

Division saw suit trademark / Exs.P7 and P8, took it away from sweep of its eyes – Little

later, saw Defendant's alleged offending mark / Ex.P9 and asked itself question as to

whether man of average intelligence with imperfect recollection and ordinary prudence

6

would be lulled into belief that what he was seeing now / alleged offending mark / Ex.P9

was what he had seen earlier / Plaintiff's mark / Exs.P7 and P8 – Answer was in affirmative

– Plaintiff proved its case, hence, entitled to decree of injunctive reliefs as sought for – With

regard to prayer for damages, no evidence had been let-in, therefore, Plaintiff had not

proved its case qua damages – Defendant did not enter appearance in spite of being served

with suit summons leaving Plaintiff to carry this suit through for period of three years in this

Court to its logical end – Plaintiff entitled to costs as well as compensatory costs – Suit

decreed with costs and compensatory costs.

(2019) 1 MLJ 297

Akilandam Ammal v. S. Varadarajan


Civil Procedure – Execution Proceedings – Set aside application – Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (Code), Order 21 Rule 89 and Section 151 – Limitation Act, 1963 (Act),

Article 127 – Judgment Debtors / Defendants were directed to pay mesne profits in final

decree proceedings – Decree Holders / Plaintiffs filed Execution Proceedings to execute

order by attaching schedule property – Judgment Debtor filed application for setting aside

sale under Order 21 Rule 89 and Section 151 of Code – Prior to filing of this application,

Judgment Debtor deposited amount due towards mesne profits together with poundage and

commission charges – Executing Court dismissed application on ground that amount had

not been deposited with in period of 30 days which was confirmed in appeal, hence this

revision – Whether amounts were deposited within period of limitation for filing application

to set aside sale – Held, Article 127 of Act prescribes period within which application to set

aside sale should be made – Earlier, this was 30 days now it had been enhanced to 60 days –

Judgment Debtor had made deposit on 56th

day after sale – Order passed by lower Courts set

aside – Revision allowed.

(2019) 1 MLJ 315

Parvathi v. Gowri Ammal


Tenancy Laws – Eviction – Impleadment of Parties – On death of landlord,

Petitioners were made as party Respondents before this Court in revision proceedings that

arose out of eviction petition – Right of Petitioners over demised premises determined by

way of preliminary and final decree in partition suit – Applications filed by Petitioners to

implead them as necessary parties in execution proceedings and for stay of further

execution proceedings dismissed by Execution Court, hence these revision petitions –

Whether Petitioners were necessary parties to eviction proceedings in view of final decree

7

passed in their favour determining their title over demised premises and whether any

remedy available to Petitioners – Held, rights of Petitioners over suit property were

protected – Right to seek for possession of demised premises was always available to them

by separate independent proceedings – Their impleadment in present execution

proceedings was not warranted – No infirmity in order of Execution Court, rejecting

prayers for impleading Petitioners as necessary parties in execution proceedings and for

staying execution proceedings – Revision Petitions dismissed.

(2019) 1 MLJ 332

Emsar MGF Land Limited v. S.P. Velayutham


Civil Procedure – Commercial division – Determination of Jurisdiction –

Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 2(1)(c)(vii) – Suit property identified by Defendants

for Plaintiff for development of business / Commercial Centre – Certain sums of money

paid by Plaintiff to Defendants towards clearance of encumbrances – Defendants could not

get suit property conveyed in favour of Plaintiff free of encumbrances, hence this suit by

Plaintiff for recovery of monies paid to Defendants – Whether this suit will qualify under

sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) and whether Commercial Division had jurisdiction to

entertain suit – Held, four agreements which constitute nucleus of this suit relate to suit

property to be used exclusively in trade or commerce, for development of business /

commercial centre in city – Literal and strict interpretation of 'used' as occurring in sub-

clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of Act necessarily refers to past, present and future – If

intention of Parliament was to restrict it to any one of three, term used would have been

suitably prefixed – Intention of Parliament was to leave it open to be made applicable to all

three situations, namely past, present and future depending on factual matrix of each case –

Sub-clause (vii) should receive wide and broad connotation without restricting it to

immovable properties (subject matter of suits) used in praesenti alone – It was better to

keep this avenue broad and wide enough to accommodate suits wherein suit property was

likely to be used exclusively in trade and commerce in future also – Commercial Division

would have jurisdiction to entertain instant suit – Jurisdiction determined.

(2019) 1 MLJ 339

S. Thiyagaraja Gurukkal v. T.A.S.S. Sangam


Civil Procedure – Suit for bare injunction – Additional documents – Civil Procedure

Code, 1908, Order 41 Rule 27 – Plaintiff / sangam filed suit for permanent injunction

8

claiming title to suit property based upon settlement deed – Trial court dismissed suit which

was reversed by appellate court, hence this appeal and application for reception of additional

documents by defendants – Whether additional documents were required to be received –

Whether Appellate Court justified in going into question of title, in absence of prayer for

declaration of title – Whether finding rendered by appellate Court regarding possession of

Plaintiff on basis of property tax receipts was justified in law – Whether appellate Court

correct in law in decreeing suit by not reversing finding of fact rendered by trial court – Held,

application preferred by defendants for reception of additional documents, has not satisfied

paramenters governing principles of law provided under Order 41 Rule 27 – Sufficient cause

not show by Defendants as to why they had not endeavored to produce projected additional

documents before lower Courts – Additional documents could not be received without

adducing oral evidence – Additional documents were not required for sustaining defence

version – Appellate court erred in going into question of title in absence of prayer of

declaration of title by Plaintiff – Plaintiff's title to suit property was under challenge in toto by

Defendants – Appellate court erred in accepting Plaintiff's case based upon tax receipts and

service connection documents which did not establish Plaintiff's legal possession and

enjoyment of suit property – Projected documents came into existence after institution of lis –

Appellate court failed to give valid and acceptable reasons for setting aside well-considered

reasoning of trial court – Appellate Court erred in indirectly upholding claim of Plaintiff's title

to suit property – Appeal allowed with costs.

(2019) 1 MLJ 406

Mohala v. Siva

Judgment: 22.11.2018

Civil Procedure – Rejection of plaint – Non-Disclosure of cause of action – Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 7 Rule 11 – Plaintiffs / Respondents filed suit for permanent

injunction restraining Petitioners / 1st and 2

nd Defendants / owners of A Schedule property

from putting up construction in B Schedule property, for which Plaintiffs entered into sale

agreement with vendor – Petition filed by Petitioners for rejection of plaint on ground that

plaint averments did not disclose cause of action was dismissed by trial Court, hence this

revision – Whether Plaintiffs can maintain relief of permanent injunction against stautory

authority from granting planning permission for construction in B Schedule property to

defendants 1 and 2 on ground that Plaintiffs holds a sale agreement for said property – Held,

Plaintiffs entered into sale agreement with vendor in connection with B Schedule Property –

Agreement of Sale, not being Deed of Conveyance, would not confer any title to Plaintiffs or

transfer any interest in B Schedule Property – Plaintiffs clearly indicated that their title over

B Schedule property was yet to be conferred, hence, cause of action yet to arise – In absence

of any cause of action, no scope for trial in present suit – Trial Court ought to have

considered these aspects with regard to Plaintiffs' claim of title over Sale Agreement – Plaint

rejected – Revision allowed.

9

(2019) 1 MLJ 423

Commissioner v. Srikanth


Trust and Charities – Private Temple – Purview of Act – Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that suit property /

institution was not religious Institution or temple falling within purview of Act and for

consequent injunction – Defendants / Commissioner claimed that institution was temple –

Trial Court decreed suit, hence this appeal – Whether institution was private Institution or

temple / religious Institution under provisions of Act – Whether there had been dedication of

Institution to public – Whether institution had trappings of temple / religious Institution –

Held, no stipulation for public to make any contribution on occasions and no endowment

made to temple by any outsider – Control and management of temple at all times was with

family of Plaintiffs even as admitted by D.W.1 – There were no Hundial, Gopuram,

Prakaram and Moorthies – Worship by public was encouraged – Merely because there was

public visit to temple, worship would not give institution character of public temple –

Institution was not public temple and there was no dedication for benefit of general public –

Merely because public used to worship in place, it could not be categorized as public temple

– Appeal dismissed with costs.

(2019) 1 MLJ 445

Commr., H.R. & C.E. Admn. Dept. v.A. Krishna Iyer


Trust and Charities – Private Temple – Non Production of Inspection Report – Tamil

Nadu HR and CE Act 1959, Section 70 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114(g) –

Plaintiffs / Trustees filed suit under Section 70 of Act 1959 seeking to set aside order passed

by 1st Defendant / Commissioner, HR and CE and declare that temple in issue is private

temple belonging to 1st Plaintiff – Suit decreed by Trial Court – Present appeal preferred

challenging same – Whether non-production of inspection report is fatal to the case of the

appellant / defendant – Whether the temple is a private temple or a public temple – Held,

Section 114(g) of Act 1959, states that adverse inference can be drawn against party for

non-production of any vital document – Ingredient required to declare a temple as a public

temple is that there must be dedication for the benefit of the Hindu community as a place of

public religious worship – There is no evidence of such dedication – Travancore

Samasthanam have given a specific grant to the community and the management of the

Temple had been vested with the members of the Temple had been vested with the members

of the Brahmin community in the village – It is clear that the temple is a private temple –

10

Seen from evidence that temple does not have Rajagopuram, Hundial, Kodimaram and

Balipeedam which are necessary ingredients for public temple – Defendants have not

produceed any evidence contradicting facts established by Plaintiffs – Presumed that report

had not been produced only because it was adverse to stand of Defendants – Appeal

dismissed with costs.

(2019) 1 MLJ 449

NLC India Limited v. SICAL Logistics Limited


Alternative Dispute Resolution – Arbitration – Exparte interim orders – Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), Section 9 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code), Order

39 Rule 3 – Disputes arose between Petitioners and Respondent with regard to contractual

arrangement for transportation of coal – Respondent filed petition under Section 9 of Act and

interim applications – Ex-parte interim orders granted, hence these revisions – Whether

orders impugned to be set aside on ground of want of jurisdiction – Whether priniciples

underlying Order 39 Rule 3 of Code had to be borne in mind while considering application

under Section 9 of Act – Held, Principal District Judge was on leave and Additional District

Judge was discharging duties in in-charge capacity – He was holding full additional charge

and whatever power and jurisdiction that vested in Principal District Judge could also be

exercised by Additional District Judge – Orders impugned could not be set aside on ground

of want of jurisdiction – Lower court nowhere recorded reasons as to why it died not order

notice to opposite party before granting interim relief and also, as to why it felt constrained to

grant exparte relief – Reasons must be set out justifying departure from general approach and

since no reasons assigned as to why exparte interim order was being passed, there was non-

application of mind – Principles underlying Rule 3 to Order 39 of Code had to be borne in

mind while considering application under Section 9 of Act but same had been lost sight of

totally in this case, therefore, orders impugned set aside – Petitions allowed.

(2019) 1 MLJ 473

Saraswathi Ammal v. V. Vadamalai Rengappan (died)


Property Laws – Possession of title – Service inam land – Transfer of Property Act,

1882 (Act 1882), Section 43 – Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

Act, 1959 (Act 1959), Section 41 – Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition Act 30 of 1963 (Act

1963) – Respondent / Plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction

having purchased suit property from original inam holder – Appellant / Defendant claimed

that sale deed in favour of Plaintiff was set aside by Inam Settlement Thasildar – Trial Court

dismissed suit which was reversed by first appellate Court, hence this appeal – Whether

11

Respondent could take benefit of Section 43 of Act 1882, when sale of service inam land was

void as opposed to public policy – Whether lower appellate Court was right in allowing

appeal when land was vested with Government under Act 1963 – Held, sale deed in favour of

Plaintiff was void abinitio by statute and not by act of one of parties – Transaction done in

definance of law laid down under statute – Section 41 of Act 1959 declares any sale of inam

land as null and void – Sale barred by statute since nature of lands was service inam for

providing garlands to Deity – Benefit under Section 43 of Act 1882 would never enure to

Plaintiff – On introduction of Act 1963, service inam lands coverted into ryotwari patta by

Government Inamthars exercised option as fixed under Act 1963 and paid amount

determined – They were also granted ryotwari patta – As they opted to release land from

Katalai of service inam, they had right to sell land and therefore, sold land to Defendant who

acquired perfect title – Plaintiff had not challenged earlier order – Judgment and decree

passed by Appellate Court set aside and that of trial Court confirmed – Appeal allowed with

cost.

* * * * *

12

MADRAS HIGH COURT – CRIMINAL CASES

(2019) 1 MLJ (Crl) 161

P.L. Jayaraj v. State rep. By The Inspector of Police


Statutor bail – Conditions – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 162(2) –

Petitioner filed petition for grant of statutory bail under Section 167(2) – Magistrate ordered

bail on condition that Petitioner shall deposit sum of Five crores to credit of case, hence this

petition – Whether condition imposed for grant of bail liable to be modified – Held, only

condition that could be imposed while granting anticipatory bail under Section 167(2) was

that accused persons shall be released on bail, if he was prepared to and does furnish bail –

Apart from that no other requirement was necessary for grant of statutory bail as per Section

167(2) – Charge sheet had not been filed by Respondent police – Petitioner entitled to be

released on statutory bail under Section 167(2) – Right to be released under Section 167(2)

was indefeasible right and such right could not be extinguished by imposition of onerous

conditions – Condition imposed by Magistrate set aside – Petition allowed.

(2019) 1 MLJ (Crl) 166

P. Dhanam v. G. Arjunan


Negotiable Instruments – Dishonor of Cheque – Legally enforceable debt –

Negotiable Instruments Act, Sections 138 and 139 – Magistrate found Respondent guilty

under Section 138 of Act, however, Sessions Judge set aside conviction, hence this appeal by

Complainant – Whether acquittal of accused for offence under Section 138, justified – Held,

though Respondent admitted signature, Complainant gave two different versions for source

to lend money – Complainant had not explained as to why she had given huge amount in six

different dates even without getting any documents – Subject cheque was obtained only after

three months – No prudent lady would lend such huge amount without getting any

documentary proof – She had not examined her son to prove source – Doubt arose for

lending money by Appellant to Respondent as stated in complaint and in evidence – Benefit

of doubt extended to Respondent by Sessions Judge – Appeal dismissed.

13

(2019) 1 MLJ (Crl) 171

Anthoniammal v. State


Murder – Provocation – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 304(ii) and 342 – Trial

Court found Appellant / accused guilty for offences under Sections 304(ii) and 342 for

pouring petrol on her husband and setting him ablaze, hence this appeal – Whether

conviction of accused under Sections 304(ii) and 342, justified and whether prosecution

proved guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt – Held, evidence of P.W.2 / neighbour and

P.W.3 / mother of deceased show that deceased had attacked accused on particular day and

that deceased used to beat accused repeatedly in drunken stage – P.W.3's evidence further

indicate that deceased had affair with sister of accused as result of which child was born and

also, affair with another lady – All these facts would have been lingering in her mind and

caused serious mental cruelty on accused – On date of occurrence accused was subjected to

physical violence and only on such persistent provocation, accused took extreme step of

pouring petrol and set deceased ablaze – Considering that occurrence took place due to

provocation and continuous torture and that accused had one daughter, reduction of sentence

would meet ends of justice – Conviction under Sections 342 and 304(ii) confirmed –

Substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by trial Court modified and accused directed

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine – Appeal partly allowed.

(2019) 1 MLJ (Crl) 176

Saraswathy v. State through Additional Superintendent of Police


Illegal gratification – Reverse burden of proof – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,

Sections 7 and 13 – Trial Court convicted Appellant / accused, noon meal Supervisor for

receiving illegal gratification from defacto Complainant for forwarding his application for

Female Child Protection Scheme, hence this appeal – Whether reverse burden of proof case

upon accused discharged by accused – Held, P.W.3 / shadow witness said that, immediately

on seeing trap team, he saw accused throwing tainted money through window – Case of

prosecution was that only after conducting Phenolphthalein test in hands of accused and

collecting samples, they went out and collected tainted money lying on open space outside

just below window near of accused seat – This version of prosecution did not appear to be

true as it was in open public place for long time – When P.W.3 had seen accused throwing

money through window, trap laying officer immediately should have acted upon and

recovered same – Instead he completed Phenolphthalein test and thereafter went in search of

tainted money – There was lapse and contradiction – Consistent case of accused that she did

not demand or receive any illegal gratification and recovery of money was not recovered

from her possession required due consideration – There was inconsistency and contradiction

14

in case of prosecution in respect of demand, acceptance and recovery – Appellant entitled for

benefit of doubt – Appeal allowed.

(2019) 1 MLJ (Crl) 185

S. Anbazhagan v. Sub Inspoector of Police


Quashing of Final Report – Cheating – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code 1973),

Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Code 1860), Section 420 – Petitioner / accused

caused worngful loss to 2nd

Resopondent – Final report filed by Police under Section 420 of

Code 1860 against accused, hence this petition for quashing of report – Whether final report

filed under Section 420 of Code 1860 against Petitioner, sustainable – Held, Complainant is

required to show that accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at time of making

promise or representation – From failure of accused to keep up promise, culpable intention

right at beginning when promise was made, cannot be presumed – Grievance of 2nd

Respondent is that Petitioner promised to install Solar Power but same was never done by

him – 2nd

Respondent has not paid entire amount for Solar Power Plant and what was paid

was only advance – Material available on record does not satisfy ingredients of Section 420

of Code 1860 – Prosecution has completely failed to establish offence of cheating against

Petitioner and continuation of proceedings before lower Court will amount to abuse of

process of Court – Petition allowed.

(2019) 1 MLJ (Crl) 280

Manicka Udayar v. State rep. By The Inspector of Police


Rioting – Genesis of occurrence – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 148, 149, 307, 324

and 326 – Trial Court convicted Appellants / 1st to 6

th accused on allegation that accused

came with deadly weapons and indiscriminately cut prosecution party, hence this appeal –

Whether prosecution proved guilt of 1st to 6

th accused beyond all reasonable doubt – Held,

only prosecution party went to accused place and attacked them and as a result, accused

exercised right of private defence – “Trial Court found this aspect relying upon evidences of

D.W.1 and D.W.2 and Exs. D.1 to D.6 – Entire genesis of occurrence was suppressed and

further, witnesses suppressed even injuries sustained by accused – Even the place of

occurrence was totally shifted by witnesses during trial – All these facts create serious doubt

about entire genesis of prosecution case – Unsafe to convict accused solely on basis of one

version of prosecution – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Appeal allowed.

15

(2019) 1 MLJ (Crl) 333

Duraisamy v. Kumarasamy


Negotiable Instruments – Dishonor of cheque – Appeal against acquittal – Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 Sections 138 and 139 – Trial Court convicted accused under Section

138 of Act, however, Appellate court set aside conviction, hence this appeal – Whether

acquittal of accused for offence under Section 138 of Act, justified – Held, Complainant had

stated that accused was his friend, but, in cross-examination, he pleaded ignorance when he

was asked as to whether he knew about family size of accused – From earliest point of time

in reply notice, accused had been taking stand that account was closed three years earlier and

there was no borrowal as alleged by Complainant on certain date and that impugned cheque

was not issued to Complainant – Post-dated cheque for five lakh was given on certain date –

Complainant had not even taken any step to verify from bank of accused about very validity

of cheque, especially, when he was giving huge loan of five lakh without any documentation

– When all aforesaid factors were cumulatively appraised together with general tenor of

evidence of Complainant, no reason found to upset order of acquittal – Appeal dismissed.

(2019) 1 MlJ (Crl) 352

G. Logeswaran v. State represented by. Inspector of Police


Quashing of Proceedings – Women Harassment – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(Code 1973), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Code 1860), Sections 292

(a) and 506(i) – Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 (Act 1998),

Section 4 – de facto Complainant gave complaint on Petitioner under Sections 292 (a), 506(i)

of Code 1860 and Section 4 of Act 1998 that he sent threatening messages to her cellphone,

pressuring her to marry him – Charges framed by Trial Court, hence this petition – Whether

proceedings before Trial Court, to be quashed – Held, requirements of Section 4 of Act 1998

have not been fulfilled – Message sent through mobile phone will not attract requirements of

said provision – Proceedings on file of Trial Court, quashed – Petition allowed.

(2019) 1 MLJ (Crl)357

G. Kothandan v. State


Illegal gratification – Demand and acceptance – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,

Sections 7, 13 and 20 – Trial Court convicted Appellant / accused / Conservation Inspector

for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) for demand and acceptance of illegal

gratification from P.W.2 / de-facto Complainant / conservation worker, hence this appeal –

Whether explanation offered by Appellant was probable and plausible and rebuts

16

presumption under Section 20 of Act – Held, PW2 was interested witness in trap and had

previous enmity and motive against Appellant – Her evidence regarding demand and

acceptance could not be believed without corroboration – Evidence of PW3 and PW4 were in

total contradiction to evidence of PW2 regarding demand and acceptance – PW3 was stock

witness and contradictions in evidence of PW3 and PW4 made their presence doubtful –

Circumstances under which money had been received explained by Appellant – By letting in

evidence of DW1 to DW3 in defence and marking Ex.D1 and Ex.C1, Appellant proved that

amount handed over by PW2 was only balance loan amount – Reason given by Appellant for

receipt of amount was probable and plausible – Benefit of doubt extended to Appellant –

Appeal allowed.

(2019) 1 MLJ (Crl)385

Anil Pathak v. Larsen and Toubro Limited


Quashing of Proceedings – Directors of company – Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (Code 1973), Section 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act), Section 138 and

141 – Petitioners filed petitions to quash complaints filed by Respondent under Section 138

of Act on ground that they were only Investor Directors / Non-Executive Directors and

complaint did not contain sufficient allegations against them to satisfy requirements under

Section 141of Act – Held, in order to make Director of Company liable for offence

committed by Company under Section 141 of Act, there must be specific averment against

Director to show as to how and in what manner Director was responsible for conduct of

business of Company – If it was enough to mechanically repeat requirement under Section

141[1] of Act, any number of Directors could be made as accused in complaint filed under

Section 138 of Act – This might lead to abuse of process of court and any person shown as

Director would be made to undergo ordeal of trial – Allegations made in complaint did not

satisfy requirements of Section 141 of Act – Proceedings quashed insofar as Petitioners are

concerned – Petitions allowed.

* * * * *

tamil nadu state judicial academy · 2019. 5. 3. · anil pathak v. larsen and toubro limited...

Documents